About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
, it is a goal. certainly, that is what president obama said he supports, that someday -- probably not in this lifetime, but some day we should hope for a world that would be free of nuclear weapons. i have heard you say that you agree with those two statements prepared but do you also agree that as long as nuclear weapons exist, we have to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal to deter any adversary? >> yes, completely, absolutely. i have never had any position but that. as i indicated this morning and this afternoon, i will continue to take the position. as i said in my opening statement and an answer to other questions, our nuclear deterrent has probably been the core of keeping world peace and avoiding a world war iii. as long as there is the threat of nuclear weapons, and like you noted and president obama noted in his speech in 2009, it probably will not happen in our lifetime. but just as you noted, and in senator read's comments about what president reagan laid on the cape -- on the table in 1986, we need to keep working on it and moving forward and temptin
, or in our video library. and tomorrow, a farewell ceremony in honor of leon panetta. president obama and martin dempsey are expected to speak. we will have coverage at 3:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. john brennan, the nominee to the cia, testified today at his confirmation hearing. the topic of drone strikes came app. dianne feinstein said she will look into new legislation to govern overseas strikes. there was an interruption by protesters. it is three and a half hours. >> you are a disgrace to democracy. >> if the police will clear the room, please. will clear the room, please. [indiscernible] [shouting continues] >> [indiscernible] please clear the room. >> [indiscernible] please clear the room. [protest continues] all right, i think we should clear the entire room and then let people back in. what do you think? >> we need more capital police. >> yeah, let's -- [indiscernible] ok, we will try and start. ok, we will i am going to began this -- begin this hearing, and let me say right up front that the process is that people are respectful, that they do not shout, they do not hiss, the
to get a sense on how significant a dent that could put in the relationship if president obama says no to the keystone. >> i think it depends on how it is managed between the two leaders. this is a case in which the prime minister believes this is an important issue for canada. it was understandable in the context of the run-up to the presidential election campaign the last time that he was saying no and there were other issues that were more of a local nature as well at the site, it could be accepted as something that was more in the nature of the delay and a flat-out refusal. i think it will be meaningful. it will be important how it is explained if the answer is no. what is the justification? what is the reality that is perceived to come out of it? if their reasons are door that you describe them, i will be found -- that will be found unacceptable and that would be a problem. >> in talking to canadian politicians, there are some things out of joint. a lot of it has to do with the suggestion that if canada were to do more on the climate change front, this might help us. canadian p
. then president obama and his choice to replace the interior secretary can salazar. and then leon panetta talks to -- and the armed services committees of her proposals to avoid the budget cuts. the postmaster general announced that the post office will end saturday mail delivery service starting in early august. they expect the change to save $2 billion a year. package delivery service will continue six days a week. this news conference is 35 minutes. >> good morning everybody. thank you for joining us. today, we're going to be making an announcement about an important change to our national delivery schedule. i think anyone who has followed the postal service over the past couple of years know that we have been consistently making changes to our delivery schedule. it is an important part of our strategy returning back to financial stability and it is absolutely necessary to make that move. before i get into the details of the announcement, i would like to spend a couple of minutes discussing the financial reasons for this scheduled delivery change. since 2008, we have seen a steady decline in
are not expecting congress to come up with an agreement. there has been a focus on what can president obama do? keystone is not the only thing we're talking about in the united states. there has been new regulation proposed. that will be where we can make an executive order happened urate also the executive opportunity does extend to keystone. the president has an opportunity there. looking at existing carbon pollution and united states, we have to tackle that. we look at keystone as future carbon emissions. the opportunity here is for the country to work on their climate target together. this should not be a finger pointing exercise. can canada and the united states meet their targets? i think canada has further to go but that can be done. >> the canadian government has said they're going to come out with regulations for the oil and gas sector. we are waiting to see what they are. if they came out with strong regulations that would meet those targets, what groups like yours say that is great? would it make any difference to the opposition to this project? >> we are interested in time a policy
us on facebook. tuesday, president obama talked about deferring the cuts that were to go into effect next month. wednesday, leading republicans on the armed services committees outline their plans to avoid those automatic defense cuts. this is 30 minutes. >> yesterday, the president gave us a proposal that cuts defense spending once again. it has $500 billion in new taxes and also cuts in domestic spending. it is irresponsible, unacceptable. it leaves their troops and our economy and ready to face the challenges of the future. or the threats of today. when i went to the steering committee to apply for this job, i explained to them the way i saw the jobless to make sure that our troops, those who we sent into harm's way would have everything they needed to carry out their missions and return home safely. everything in the way resources, training, leadership, these things are very important. and i look at what is happening with these cuts that we have seen the last couple of years and it is just irresponsible that the commander in chief, his main job should be the same that i look at a
>> president obama has nominated chuck hagel to replacereplace leon panetta as e secretary. mr. hegel is a war veteran. he served in the senate until 2009. after his senate career, he became part of a foreign-policy think tank. at his confirmation hearing today, he had some back and forth with former colleagues, including senator john mccain. that exchange is about an hour and a half into the hearing. later, we will get your thoughts about the nomination and hearing on our phone lines at 11:00 p.m. eastern, 8:00 pacific. carl levin chairs the armed services committee and makes the opening statement. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets today to consider the nomination of former senator chuck hagel to be secretary of defense. before i begin, i want to first welcome senator inhofe as the new ranking republican on our committee, succeeding senator mccain. senator mccain has been a great partner over the past six years, and i thank him for all the work he has
, republican leaders spoke of the upcoming budget cuts, known as a sequestration. president obama is in newport news, virginia and talks about the effects of sequestration would have on them middle-class. -- on the middle class. the senate voted to confirm senator chuck hagel as the next defense secretary. the final vote was 58-41 with four republicans joining 52 democrats and two independents in voting aye. next, the 25 minute debate on the senate floor. >> it is now time for us to vote up or down on the nomination for many reasons. the nomination has been before us now inadequate time to get the information which our colleagues have asked for. there is also the looming fact of sequestration. we need to have a secretary of defense who is not only in office, but whose leadership is not in limbo, but is there. our troops need it. their families needed. our country needs it. we have 66,000 military arsenal in harms way in afghanistan. the president of afghanistan has directed the united states to remove its special operations forces from a key afghan province. our military bases key decisions abo
the challenges he faced. sunday night at 8 p.m. on c- span's "q&a." members of president obama's cabinet were before the senate committee today and outlining their sentiments of what would happen if the automatic spending cuts, the sequestration, went into effect on march one. they discussed homeland security housing, and education. this is three hours. >> that morning, everyone. it today we are convening the committee of the appropriations committee. it is the worst hearing in the 113th congress for the appropriations committee. the focus of today's hearing will be on the impact of the sequester and the critical national function that are important to the security, safety, and future of the american people. as i take this gavel, i'm mindful of the -- and acknowledge the previous leadership of the outstanding chair. it is a great honor for me to be part of this committee. we all carry a special place in our hearts today for senator don the whole ionay -- - senator. the senator of hawaii. i wanted knowledge the incredible cooperation i have seen. one of the senators was the vice chair. he talk
the obama administration says the iranian nuclear capability is such a threat is because it would cascade to proliferation around the middle east, but love it if you could address that as well. >> i will answer the questions posed very quickly. i am just a dot middle east expert. this session on iran is talking about iran, but i have a great deal of sympathy for the sentiment. i do believe north korea is a very big problem. we often have the debate if iran is irrational. from what i understand about north korea, you could barely fill a symbol. my sense is they are not always entirely rational either and there are some things going on in that regime that could lead them to do things that are irrational and that worries me enormously. the issue of proliferation gets to north korea as well. proliferation is a very big concern about iran's nuclearization. it is one reason i suggested it's better that if we do not have to continue going down this road and if they never crossed the with the position threshold -- teh weaponization threshold. there is a hysteria on both sides. yes, proliferation
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10